The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Continued from page 2

Our BIAS (Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies) cause the selection process to pick someone who is seen as less creative. Consider these comments:

"would you rather have a calm hand on the tiller, or someone who constantly steers the boat this way then that?"

"do you want slow, steady conservatism in control - or irrational exuberance?"

"do we want consistent execution or big ideas?"

These are all phrases I've heard (as you might have also) for selecting a candidate with a mediocre track record, and very limited creativity, over a candidate with much better results and a flair for creativity to get things done regardless of what the market throws at her. All imply that what's important to leadership is not making mistakes. If you just don't screw up the future will take care of itself. And that's soooo industrial economy - so "just don't let the plant blow up."

That approach simply doesn't work any more. Not if you want to grow, anyway. The Christian Science Monitor reported in "Obama's Innovation Push: Has U.S. Really Fallen Off the Cutting Edge" that America is already in economic trouble due to our lock-in to out-of-date notions about what creates business success. In the last 2 years America has fallen from first to fourth in the World Economic Forum ranking of global competitiveness. And while America still accounts for 40% of global R&D spending, we rank remarkably low (on all studies below 10th place) on things like public education, math and science skills, national literacy and even internet access! While we've poured billions into saving banks, and rebuilding roads (ostensibly hiring lots of asphalt layers) we still have no national internet system, nor a free backbone for access by all budding entrepreneurs!

Ask the question, "If Steve Jobs (or his clone) showed up at our company asking for a job - would we give him one?" Don't forget, the Apple Board fired Steve Jobs some 20 years ago to give his role to a less creative, but more "professional," John Scully. Mr. Scully was subsequently fired by the Board for creatively investing too heavily in the innovative Newton - the first PDA - to be replaced by a leadership team willing to jettison this new product market and refocus all attention on the Macintosh. Both CEO decisions turned out to be horrible for Apple, and it was only after Mr. Jobs returned to the company that its fortunes re-blossomed when the company replaced outdated industrial management philosophies with innovation. But, oh-so-close the company came to complete failure before re-igniting the innovation jets.

Examples of outdated management, with horrific results, abound. Brenda Barnes destroyed shareholder value for 6 years at Sara Lee chasing a centralized focus and cost reductions - leaving the company with no future other than break-up and acquisition. GE's fortunes have dropped dramatically as Mr. Immelt turned away from the rabid efforts at innovation and growth under Welch and toward more cautious investments and reliance on a set of core markets - including financial services. After once dominating the mobile phone industry, the best Motorola's leadership has been able to do lately is split the company in two - hoping as a divided business leadership can do better than it did as a single entity. Even a big winner like Home Depot has struggled to innovate and grow as it remained dedicated to its traditional business. Once a darling of industry, the supply chain-focused Dell has lost its growth and value as a raft of new MBA leaders - mostly recruited from consultancy Bain & Company - have kept applying traditional industrial management with its cost curves and economy-of-scale illogic to a market racked by the introduction of new products such as smartphones and tablets.